ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
On-Site Evaluation and Improvement Strategies of Radiation Occupational Hazard Prevention and Control Effectiveness in Medical Institution Construction Projects.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the control effectiveness of medical institution construction projects, and to summarize and analyze the radiation protection management status and improvement strategies of relevant medical institutions. Methods: A total of 40 medical institutions in our city were evaluated for control effectiveness through measures such as data research, on-site investigations, equipment quality testing, and radiation health protection inspections. Results: The compliance rates of personnel configuration, verification of protective measures, and radiation protection management and emergency response were 95.0%, 67.5%, and 70.0%, respectively. Compared to earlier evaluation periods (eg, before the implementation of new DR performance testing standards, where compliance rates were below 60%), there has been a marked improvement in compliance with performance and protection testing, particularly after the introduction of updated evaluation criteria. The first-pass rates of performance testing for DSA, DR, CT, and dental equipment were 100%, 84.0%, 92.0%, and 100%, respectively. The first-pass rates of radiation protection inspection for related equipment rooms were 100%, 100%, 92.0%, and 100%, respectively. New DR performance testing standards introduced specialized testing items, such as dark noise, detector dose indication (DDI), and signal transmission characteristics (STP), which presented initial challenges due to the unavailability of pre-processing images in some manufacturers' products. Additionally, higher monitoring values were identified at doors, door gaps, and cable penetration points in equipment rooms. Regarding radiation protection management and emergency response, issues such as overly rigid emergency response plans, insufficient personal dose management, and inadequate occupational health examinations remain, requiring systematic adjustments. Conclusion: At present, the awareness of radiation hazard prevention and control in medical institutions has been improved. Compared to earlier periods of testing and evaluation, there has been a significant improvement in the degree of compliance with performance and protection testing. Medical institutions have strengthened equipment annual inspections, quality control, and other management work, further enhancing the level of radiation protection management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.